Back
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Dhruvjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. As all these criminal appeals have arisen out of same judgement of conviction and sentence, hence, these are being decided by this common judgement:-
3. Above noted Criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants namely, Dhruvjeet Singh, Vimlesh Singh, Santosh Singh, Rakesh Singh and Akhilesh with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.9.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Gangster Act, Court No.3, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Dhruvjeet Singh and others in Case Crime No.136 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Gahmar, District Ghazipur, whereby, they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
(ii) to undergo ten years rigo
Eyewitness testimony is crucial in establishing guilt, and the absence of motive does not negate direct evidence in murder cases.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The prosecution failed to establish the identification of the appellants and the motive for the murders, leading to their acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
